sci.anthropology
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: Modern Anthropology and its Political Agendas

Subject: Re: Re: Modern Anthropology and its Political Agendas
From: Topaz
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:04:14 -0500
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, alt.education, uk.education.misc, sci.anthropology.paleo
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/review-AR.html

Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique

Reviewed by Stanley Hornbeck

In The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully
researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th
century intellectual movements -- largely established and led by Jews
-- have changed European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed
the confidence of Western man. He claims that these movements were
designed, consciously or unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests
even though they were presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even
utopian. He concludes that the increasing dominance of these ideas has
had profound political and social consequences that benefited Jews but
caused great harm to gentile societies. This analysis, which he makes
with considerable force, is an unusual indictment of a people
generally
thought to be more sinned against than sinning.

The Culture of Critique is the final title in Prof. MacDonald's
massive, three-volume study of Jews and their role in history. The two
previous volumes are A People That Shall Dwell Alone and Separation
and
its Discontents, published by Praeger in 1994 and 1998. The series is
written from a sociobiological perspective that views Judaism as a
unique survival strategy that helps Jews compete with other ethnic
groups. Prof. MacDonald, who is a psychologist at the University of
California at Long Beach, explains this perspective in the first
volume, which describes Jews as having a very powerful sense of
uniqueness that has kept them socially and genetically separate from
other peoples. The second volume traces the history of Jewish-gentile
relations, and finds the causes of anti-Semitism primarily in the
almost invariable commercial and intellectual dominance of gentile
societies by Jews and in their refusal to assimilate. The Culture of
Critique brings his analysis into the present century, with an account
of the Jewish role in the radical critique of traditional culture.

The intellectual movements Prof. MacDonald discusses in this volume
are
Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt school of sociology,
and Boasian anthropology. Perhaps most relevant from a racial
perspective, he also traces the role of Jews in promoting
multi-culturalism and Third World immigration. Throughout his analysis
Prof. MacDonald reiterates his view that Jews have promoted these
movements as Jews and in the interests of Jews, though they have often
tried to give the impression that they had no distinctive interests of
their own. Therefore Prof. MacDonald's most profound charge against
Jews is not ethnocentrism but dishonesty -- that while claiming to be
working for the good of mankind they have often worked for their own
good and to the detriment of others. While attempting to promote the
brotherhood of man by dissolving the ethnic identification of
gentiles,
Jews have maintained precisely the kind of intense group solidarity
they decry as immoral in others.

Celebrating Diversity
Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which
Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and
diversity -- but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they
have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations
of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis
for
morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time,
within their own communities, and with regard to the state of Israel,
they have often supported the very institutions they attack in gentile
society.

Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group
loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a
society
that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The Jewish
determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their
survival as a people for thousands for years -- even without a country
-- has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in
nations with well -defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald's
view it is therefore in the interest of Jews to dilute and weaken the
identity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can
flower
in safety only when gentile identity is weak.

Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman:
"American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their
belief -- one firmly rooted in history -- that Jews are safe only in a
society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well
as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for
example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming
majority of American Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a
liberal
stance on most other so-called 'social' issues."

He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the
diversity-is-our-strength argument it is in support of their real goal
of diluting a society's homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They
are couching a Jewish agenda in terms they think gentiles will accept.
Likewise, as the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests, Jews
may support deviant movements, not because they think it is good for
the country but because it is good for the Jews.

Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish
economist who thought that republicans had more sensible economic
policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate
anyway. His reason? "I'd rather live in a country governed by the
faces
I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the Republican
convention." This man apparently distrusts white gentiles and voted
for
a racially mixed party even if its economic policies were wrong. What
is good for Jews appears to come before what is good for the country.

Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University
makes
the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing his
satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next
century
whites will become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped beyond the
point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this
country." He is apparently prepared to displace the people and culture
of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise of an
anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as
potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and
national
continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews. This passage
takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews as a distinct
community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and influence.

In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, "[w]e [Jews]
have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for
about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the
heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it
irreversible..." -- just as it tends to make the ultimate displacement
of European culture also irreversible.

Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to
several sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish
immigrant Franz Boas (1858-1942) almost single-handedly established
the
current contours of anthropology, ridding it of all biological
explanations for differences in human culture or behavior. Prof.
MacDonald reports that he and his followers -- with the notable
exceptions of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict -- were all Jews with
strong Jewish identities: "Jewish identification and the pursuit of
perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of
cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the
'invisible subject' of American anthropology."

By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological
Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university
anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted
the idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that
environment counts for everything. They completely recast anthropology
so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration,
integration, and miscegenation. They also laid the foundation for the
idea that because all races have the same potential, the failures of
non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression. The
ultimate
conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that since environment accounts
for all human differences, every inequality in achievement can be
eliminated by changing the environment. This has been the
justification
for enormous and wasteful government intervention programs.

The entire "civil rights" movement can be seen as a natural
consequence
of the triumph of Boasian thinking. Since all races were equivalent,
separation was immoral. The color line also sharpened white
self-consciousness in ways that might make whites more aware of Jewish
parochialism. Thus it was, according to Prof. MacDonald, that Jews
almost single-handedly launched the desegregation movement. Without
the
leadership of Jews, the NAACP might never have been established, and
until 1975 every one of its presidents was a Jew. Prof. MacDonald
reports that in 1917, when the black separatist Marcus Garvey visited
NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he stormed out,
complaining that it was a white organization.

Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the
"civil rights" transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the
American Jewish Congress who claims that "many of these [civil rights]
laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish
staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into
being
by Jewish voters."

While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial
equivalence,
it was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald's words, "American culture
as overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and aesthetically
repressive (especially with regard to sexuality). Central to this
program was creating ethnographies of idyllic [Third-World] cultures
that were free of the negatively perceived traits that were attributed
to Western culture."

The Role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything
about Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Prof.
MacDonald notes that Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples
deliberately ignored barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to
contamination from the West. He sees this as a deliberate attempt to
undermine the confidence of Western societies and to make them
permeable to Third World influences and people. Today, this view is
enshrined in the dogma that America must remain open to immigration
because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives somehow lack.

Authoritarian Personalities
In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that
would transform them, it was necessary to discredit racial solidarity
and commitment to tradition. Prof. MacDonald argues that this was the
basic purpose of a group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt
School. What is properly known as the Institute of Social Research was
founded in Frankfurt, Germany, during the Weimar period by a Jewish
millionaire but was closed down by the Nazis shortly after they took
power. Most of its staff emigrated to the United States and the
institute reconstituted itself at UC Berkeley. The organization was
headed by Max Horkheimer, and its most influential members were T.W.
Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse, all of whom had strong
Jewish
identities. Horkheimer made no secret of the partisan nature of the
institute's activities: "Research would be able here to transform
itself directly into propaganda," he wrote. (Italics in the original)

Prof. MacDonald devotes many pages to an analysis of The Authoritarian
Personality, which was written by Adorno and appeared in 1950. It was
part of a series called Studies in Prejudice, produced by the
Frankfurt
school, which included titles like Anti-Semitism and Emotional
Disorder. The Authoritarian Personality, which was particularly
influential because, according to Prof. MacDonald, the American Jewish
Committee heavily funded its promotion and because Jewish academics
took up its message so enthusiastically.

The book's purpose is to make every group affiliation sound as if it
were a sign of mental disorder. Everything from patriotism to religion
to family -- and race -- loyalty are sign of a dangerous and defective
"authoritarian personality." Because drawing distinctions between
different groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties -- even close
family ties! -- are "prejudice." As Christopher Lasch has written, the
book leads to the conclusion that prejudice "could be eradicated only
by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective
psychotherapy -- by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum."

But according to Prof. MacDonald it is precisely the kind of group
loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences
central to Jewish identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as
mental illness in gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually
became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: Anyone whose
political views were different from theirs was insane. As Prof.
MacDonald explains, the Frankfurt school never criticized or even
described Jewish group identity -- only that of gentiles: "behavior
that is critical to Judaism as a successful group evolutionary
strategy
is conceptualized as pathological in gentiles."

For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of
mental
illness: They concluded that Christian self-denial and especially
sexual repression caused hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt school was
enthusiastic about psycho-analysis, according to which "Oedipal
ambivalence toward the father and anal-sadistic relations in early
childhood are the anti-Semite's irrevocable inheritance."

In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the
Frankfurt
school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty. Prof. MacDonald
sees
the school as a seminal influence: "Certainly many of the central
attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural revolution
find expression in The Authoritarian Personality, including idealizing
rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and
scorn for upward social mobility, social status, family pride, the
Christian religion, and patriotism."

Of the interest here, however, is the movement's success in branding
ancient loyalties to nation and race as mental illnesses. Although he
came later, the French-Jewish "deconstructionist" Jacques Derrida was
in the same tradition when he wrote:

"The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of
strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to
deconstruct
the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of
native land and native tongue... The idea is to disarm the bombs... of
identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the
stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants... "

As Prof. MacDonald puts it, "Viewed at its most abstract level, a
fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples
of
the United States to view concern about their own demographic and
cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of
psychopathology." Needless to say, this project has been successful;
anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a
mentally unhinged "hate-monger," and whenever whites defend their
group
interests they are described as psychologically inadequate. The irony
has not escaped Prof. MacDonald: "The ideology that ethnocentrism was
a
form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group that over its long
history had arguably been the most ethnocentric group among all the
cultures of the world."

Immigration
Prof. MacDonald argues that it is entirely natural for Jews to promote
open immigration. It brings about the "diversity" Jews find comforting
and it keeps America open to persecuted co-religionists throughout the
world. He says Jews are the only group that has always fought for mass
immigration; a few European ethnic organizations have made sporadic
efforts to make it easier for their own people to come, but only Jews
have consistently promoted open borders for all comers. Moreover,
whatever disagreements they may have had on other issues, Jews of
every
political persuasion have favored high immigration.

This, too, goes back many years, and Prof. MacDonald traces in
considerable detail the sustained Jewish pro-immigration effort.
Israel
Zangwill, author of the eponymous 1908 play The Melting Pot, was of
the
view that "there is only one way to World Peace, and that is the
absolute abolition of passports, visas, frontiers, custom houses... "
He was nevertheless an ardent Zionist and disapproved of Jewish
intermarriage.

Although the statue of liberty, properly known as Liberty Enlightening
the World, was a gift to the United States from France as a tribute to
American political traditions, the sonnet by the Jewish Emma Lazarus
helped change it into a symbol of immigration. Affixed to the base of
the statue several decades after its construction, the poem welcomes
to
America "huddled masses yearning to breath free/The wretched refuse of
your teeming shore."

Prof. MacDonald has discovered that implausible arguments about
diversity being a quintessentially American strength have been made by
Jews for a long time. He reports that in 1948 the American Jewish
Committee was urging Congress to believe that "Americanism is the
spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to
people of all races, all religions, all nationalities." Of course,
there had never been such a tradition. In 1952, the American Jewish
Congress argued in hearings on immigration that "our national
experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in
the diversity of our peoples." This, too, was at a time when U.S.
immigration law was still explicitly designed to maintain a white
majority.

It is often said that when the old immigration policy was scrapped in
1965, scarcely anyone knew, and no one predicted, that the new law
would change the racial makeup of the country. Prof. MacDonald
disputes
this, arguing that this had been the objective of Jewish groups from
the beginning.

Prof. MacDonald finds that Jews have been the foremost advocates of
immigration in England, France, and Canada, and that Jewish groups
were
the most vocal opponents of independence for Quebec. Australian Jews
led the effort to dismantle the "white Australia" policy, one reason
for which was cited in an editorial in the Australian Jewish Democrat:
"The strengthening of multi-cultural or diverse Australia is also our
most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day
Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel more
confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian." Like Earl
Raab
writing about the United States, this Australian Jew is prepared to
sacrifice the traditional culture, people, and identity of Australia
to
specifically Jewish interests. It would not be surprising if such an
openly expressed objective did not have the opposite effect from the
intended, and increase anti-Jewish sentiment.

Jews and the Left
It is well known that Jews have been traditionally associated with the
left, and Prof. MacDonald investigates this connection in some detail.
Historically it was understandable that Jews should support movements
that advocated overthrowing the existing order. After emancipation,
Jews met resistance from gentile elites who did not want to lose
ground
to competitors, and outsiders easily become revolutionaries. However,
in Prof. MacDonald's view, Jewish commitment to leftist causes has
often been motivated by the hope that communism, especially, would be
a
tool for combating anti-Semitism, and by expectation that universalist
social solutions would be yet another way to dissolve gentile
loyalties
that might exclude Jews. The appeal of univeralist ideologies is tied
to the implicit understanding that Jewish particularism will be
exempt:
"At the extreme, acceptance of a universalist ideology by gentiles
would result in gentiles not perceiving Jews as in a different social
category at all, while nonetheless Jews would be able to maintain a
strong personal identity as Jews."

Prof. MacDonald argues that Jews had specifically Jewish reasons for
supporting the Bolshevik revolution. Czarist Russia was notorious for
its anti-Semitic policies and, during its early years, the Soviet
Union
seemed to be the promised land for Jews: it ended state anti-Semitism,
tried to eradicate Christianity, opened opportunities to individual
Jews, and preached a "classless" society in which Jewishness would
presumably attract no negative attention. Moreover, since Marxism
taught that all conflict was economic rather than ethnic, many Jews
believed it heralded the end of anti-Semitism.

Prof. MacDonald emphasizes that although Jewish Communists preached
both atheism and the solidarity of the world's working people, they
took pains to preserve a distinct, secular Jewish identity. He reports
that Lenin himself (who had one Jewish grandparent) approved the
continuation of an explicitly Jewish identity under Communism, and in
1946 the Communist Party of the United States voted a resolution also
supporting Jewish peoplehood in Communist countries. Thus, although
Communism was supposed to be without borders or religion, Jews were
confident that it would make a place for their own group identity. He
writes that despite the official view that all men were to be
brothers,
"very few Jews lost their Jewish identity during the entire soviet
era."

Jewish Communists sometimes betrayed remarkable particularism. Prof.
MacDonald quotes Charles Pappoport, the French Communist leader: "The
Jewish people [are] the bearer of all the great ideas of unity and
human community in history... The disappearance of the Jewish people
would signify the death of humankind, the final transformation of man
into a wild beast." This seems to attribute to Jews an elite position
incompatible with "unity and human community."

Prof. MacDonald argues that many Jews began to fall away from
Communism
only after Stalin showed himself to be anti-Semitic. And just as Jews
had been the leading revolutionaries in anti-Semitic pre-Revolutionary
Russia, Jews became the leading dissidents in an anti-Semitic Soviet
Union. A similar pattern can be found in the imposed Communist
governments of Eastern Europe, which were largely dominated by Jews.
The majority of the leaders of the Polish Communist Party, for
example,
spoke better Yiddish than Polish, and they too maintained a strong
Jewish identity. After the fall of Communism many stopped being Polish
and emigrated to Israel.

Prof. MacDonald writes that in Bela Kun's short-lived 1919 Communist
government of Hungary, 95 percent of the leaders were Jews, and that
at
the time of the 1956 uprising Communism was so closely associated with
Jews that the rioting had almost the flavor of a pogrom. He argues
that
in the United States as well, the hard core among Communists and
members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was mainly Jewish.
Here, too, a revolutionary, atheist, and universalist world-view was
fully compatible with strong identification as Jews. Prof. MacDonald
quotes from a study of American leftists:

"Many Communists, for example, state that they could never have
married
a spouse who was not a leftist. When Jews were asked if they could
have
married Gentiles, many hesitated, surprised by the question, and found
it difficult to answer. Upon reflection, many concluded that they had
always taken marriage to someone Jewish for granted." Their commitment
as Jews was even more fundamental and unexamined than their commitment
to the left.

Prof. MacDonald reports that many American Jews also abandoned
Communism as it became increasingly anti-Semitic. For a large number,
the Soviet Union's severing of diplomatic ties with Israel during the
1967 war was the last straw. A former SDS activist no doubt spoke for
many when he explained, "If I must choose between the Jewish cause and
a 'progressive' anti-Israel SDS, I shall choose the Jewish cause. If
barricades are erected, I will fight as a Jew." According to Prof.
MacDonald, American neoconservatism can also be described as a surface
shift in external politics that leaves the more fundamental commitment
to Jewish identity unchanged. Thus, former leftists abandoned an
ideology that had turned against Israel and refashioned American
conservatism into a different movement, the one unshakable theme of
which was support for Israel. Neoconservatives also support high
levels
of immigration and were active in excluding white racial
identification
from the "respectable" right.

Objections
There are many possible objections to Prof. MacDonald's thesis. The
first is that it is largely built on the assumption that Jews are
dishonest. It is always risky to assume one understands the motives of
others better than they do themselves. Jews have traditionally thought
of themselves as a benevolent presence, even as a "light unto the
nations" or a "chosen people." This is echoed today in the Jewish self
image as champions of the excluded and the oppressed. Most of the time
what passes for "social justice" has the effect of undermining the
traditions and loyalties of gentile society, but are Jews deliberately
undermining these things rather than righting what they perceive to be
wrongs?

Prof. MacDonald concedes that many Jews are sincere in their support
for liberal causes, but then escalates his indictment by arguing that
"the best deceivers are those who deceive themselves." In other words,
many Jews who are actually working for Jewish interests have first
convinced themselves otherwise. A Jew who mainly wants America to
become less white may also have convinced himself that America
benefits
from a multitude of cultures. Having convinced himself he can more
effectively convince others.

Many Jews, Prof. MacDonald argues, are not even conscious of the
extent
to which their Jewishness is central to their identities or their
political views. He quotes Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel on his
surprise
at how passionately he embraced the Israeli side during the 1967 war:
"I had not known how Jewish I was." This is an arresting statement
from
a man who was thought to be perhaps the greatest Jewish spiritual
leader of his time. And whether or not it affects their politics, Jews
certainly appear to have a very vivid sense of peoplehood. Prof.
MacDonald quotes theologian Eugene Borowitz as saying,"most Jews claim
to be equipped with an interpersonal friend-or-foe sensing device that
enables them to detect the presence of another Jew, despite heavy
camouflage." Always to think in terms of "friends or foe" is no
insignificant matter.

Prof. MacDonald is therefore skeptical of Jewish disavowals: "Surface
declarations of a lack of Jewish identity may be highly misleading."
He
notes that Jewish publications write about the power and influence of
American Jews in language Jews would immediately denounce as
"anti-Semitic" if used by gentiles. He agrees with Joseph Sobran, who
has said "they want to be Jews among themselves but resent being seen
as Jews by Gentiles. They want to pursue their own distinct interests
while pretending that they have no such interests ... "

Prof. MacDonald argues that the success of Jewish-led intellectual
movements has been possible only because their Jewish character was
hidden. If multi-culturalism or mass immigration or The Authoritarian
Personality had been promoted by Orthodox Jews in black coats the
Jewish element would have been clear. Prof. MacDonald writes that in
fact, "the Jewish political agenda was not an aspect of the theory and
the theories themselves had no overt Jewish content. Gentile
intellectuals approaching these theories were therefore unlikely to
view them as aspects of Jewish-gentile cultural competition or as an
aspect of a specifically Jewish political agenda." Prof. MacDonald
also
claims that Jews have often tried to conceal the Jewish character of
an
intellectual movement by recruiting token gentiles for visible
positions as spokesmen. He writes that this tactic was so common in
the
American Communist Party that gentiles often saw through it and
resigned.

But how can motives ever be completely known? Prof. MacDonald sets a
difficult test: "The best evidence that individuals have really ceased
to have a Jewish identity is if they choose a political option that
they perceive as clearly not in the interest of Jews as a group. In
the
absence of a clearly perceived conflict with Jewish interests, it
remains possible that different political choices among ethnic Jews
are
only differences in tactics for how best to achieve Jewish interests."

This standard may seem unduly harsh -- until it is applied to white
gentiles. Third-World immigration, affirmative action,
anti-discrimination laws, and forced integration are clearly not in
the
interests of whites, yet many whites embrace them, thus demonstrating
how completely they have abandoned their racial identity.

Finally, Prof. MacDonald raises the disturbing possibility that some
Jews, because of centuries of conflict with gentiles, actively hate
gentile society and consciously wish to destroy it: "a fundamental
motivation of Jewish intellectuals involved in social criticism has
simply been hatred of the gentile-dominated power structure perceived
as anti-Semitic." He describes the 19th century German-Jewish poet
Heinrich Heine as "using his skill, reputation and popularity to
undermine the intellectual confidence of the established order."

In defense of this highly provocative view, Prof. MacDonald quotes
Benjamin Disraeli on the effects of centuries of Jewish-gentile
relations on Jews: "They may have become so odious and so hostile to
mankind as to merit for their present conduct, no matter how
occasioned, the obloquy and ill-treatment of the communities in which
they dwell and with which they are scarcely permitted to mingle."

Apart from any questions of motives, however, is the question of
numbers. Jews are a tiny minority in the United States and within that
minority there is disagreement even on matters that clearly affect
Jews. How can Jews possibly be responsible for dramatic changes in the
intellectual landscape? In Prof. MacDonald's view, the explanation
lies
in the intelligence, energy, dedication, and cohesiveness of Jews. He
attributes a great deal to the average IQ of Jews -- at 115, a full
standard deviation above the white gentile average -- and to "their
hard work and dedication, their desire to make a mark on the world,
and
their desire to rise in the world, engage in personal promotion, and
achieve public acclaim... " He also believes Jews have worked together
unfailingly on any question they consider necessary for survival:
"Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor: Cohesive
groups outcompete individual strategies." He notes that there has
never
been a time when large numbers of white Americans favored non-white
immigration; it was a cohesive, determined minority that beat down the
disorganized resistance of the majority.

Prof. MacDonald believes that because of the effectiveness of some
Jews, it was not even necessary that most Jews actively support
anti-majoritarian movements, but that Jewish activity was still
decisive. As he puts it, "Jewish-dominated intellectual movements were
a critical factor (necessary condition) for the triumph of the
intellectual left in late twentieth-century Western societies." This,
of course, can never be tested, but there can be no doubt that
American
Jews have had a disproportionate effect on the American intellect.
Prof. MacDonald quotes Walter Kerr, writing in 1968, to the effect
that
"what has happened since World War II is that the American sensibility
has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish as it is anything
else... The literate American mind has come in some measure to think
Jewishly."

Aside from the question of whether Prof. MacDonald is right is the
further question of what difference it makes if he is right. If
correct, his thesis certainly sheds light on the rapidity with which
whites lost their will. Just a few decades ago whites were a confident
race, proud of their achievements, convinced of their fitness to
dominate the globe. Today they are a declining, apologetic people,
ashamed of their history and not sure even of their claim to lands
they
have occupied for centuries. It is very rare for fundamental concepts
to be stood on their heads in the course of just a generation or two,
as has happened with thinking about race. Such speed suggests there
has
been something more than natural change.


http://www.nationalvanguard.org       http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org     http://www.RealNews247.com

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>